Why, Gulbis, why?
(Question asked from a pure aesthetic point of view)

Click to expand...

Only a few full forehands were shown in the highlights of the second video. The forehand motion does not remain a constant even among a single player; it changes to some extent given the height of the ball. Hard to compare a match played on clay with a high bounce against a player known for his spin generation (Federer), with a match played on fresh first round grass with a low bounce against a player known for relatively flat trajectory strokes (Berdych). Not enough evidence to conclude he's definitively altered his stroke. You'll need slow motion practice videos from each 'forehand era' to demonstrate your claim.

But more to the point, is a long backswing always 'ugly', aesthetically? People here seem to think so, yet they also adored the look of Gonzalez's masterful forehand:

I don't really understand the objection. The forehand is one of the few shots where players can differentiate themselves from others. Most players have a unique aspect of their takeback, swing length, and so on. The game would become rather dull if everyone had a nice, clean textbook Federer, Ferrer or Agassi forehand.

The variation among forehand styles (while of course, the fundamentals remain the same between all professional players) also helps recreational players, because they can choose more than one pro to copy from. If one approach doesn't work, they can switch to another pro's approach. They can also develop their own style, again so long as it does not compromise the fundamentals. Pointing to the diversity of pro level forehands is also a good defense against the money-grubbing coach that wants to "re-build" your stroke, requiring several additional lessons.

Damn you people are a bunch of girls.. Who cares if it doesn't look "pretty"? I don't think Gulbis himself changed it because of the way it looks. I think efficacy is the most important (and the only important..) factor here. He says he will train more and be more dedicated so perhaps his new forehand is something that will help him produce some results this year. He looked very good in Rotterdam.
Also, there is nothing wrong with a big backswing. It helps you set up for a bigger shot. It's just that I have no idea what the hell he's trying to do with his left arm. But I'm sure there's some thought behind it, he's not just making up random movements just for heck of it.

It is definitely an ugly motion, but I think it was actually designed to tone down his forehand, and maybe it helps him in that way. Gulbis forehand was a very powerful shot, but it was so powerful that he went for winners all the time and hit a lot of UEs. This new movement has such a long takeback that, unless it is a ball that sits up, he will normally not go for a winner.
I just think that this might help his game more tactically than technically in that it limits his choices. Gulbis could play so many shots that it drove himself crazy

i think it's a deliberate attempt to try and get the racket through the strike zone more horizontally to increase depth and create a full stroke every time. his grip is pretty far under the racket (western) and he's definitely been a bit of a 'slapper' with the forehand at times. pointing the racket back so conspicuously might be helpful to help keep a 'full swing' thought in mind, rather than just ripping up the back of the ball with poor preparation.

Sat down front row yesterday at Delray to watch his Qualie match against Daniel Kosakowsky. I took a video of his forehand because something looked odd to me...his left hand. As far as being effective LOL, that thing is so powerful is not even funny.

Nobody has to hate anyone. We're just stating what we hate about them.

Ok here I go:

Murray: Ugly forehand. A bit passive game although it's become more interesting over the last couple of years. The most boring personality I have ever seen in my entire life. His celebration after he won his first GS was absurd, I feel like it was almost insulting to the tournament. How can you finally win something after working so hard and failing so many times and still have such a "whatever" look on your face?

Think about it, have you ever seen a player hit like that, ever? Nobody hits the ball with that kind of an ugly, ridiculous technique. He completely rapes the game of tennis by doing what he does but it's very effective. It would be the same if one soccerteam started using this tactic:

Damn you people are a bunch of girls.. Who cares if it doesn't look "pretty"? I don't think Gulbis himself changed it because of the way it looks. I think efficacy is the most important (and the only important..) factor here. He says he will train more and be more dedicated so perhaps his new forehand is something that will help him produce some results this year. He looked very good in Rotterdam.
Also, there is nothing wrong with a big backswing. It helps you set up for a bigger shot. It's just that I have no idea what the hell he's trying to do with his left arm. But I'm sure there's some thought behind it, he's not just making up random movements just for heck of it.

Click to expand...

Spare us, Merwy. Is Gulbis your son or brother that you insult people just because they think his forehand looks ugly? These quoted posts indicate that you can't refrain from making superficial critiques of effective tennis games. Nadal and Murray are both immensely successful players and by calling their games "ugly", you are calling yourself a "girl"...and a very hypocritical one at that.

I don't really understand the objection. The forehand is one of the few shots where players can differentiate themselves from others. Most players have a unique aspect of their takeback, swing length, and so on. The game would become rather dull if everyone had a nice, clean textbook Federer, Ferrer or Agassi forehand.

The variation among forehand styles (while of course, the fundamentals remain the same between all professional players) also helps recreational players, because they can choose more than one pro to copy from. If one approach doesn't work, they can switch to another pro's approach. They can also develop their own style, again so long as it does not compromise the fundamentals. Pointing to the diversity of pro level forehands is also a good defense against the money-grubbing coach that wants to "re-build" your stroke, requiring several additional lessons.

Click to expand...

There is no objection. Why can't anyone comment on aesthetics of a players game without being accused of hating or being a "girl" (heh, nice 'insult' Merwy)? The point of posting that picture was not to hate on Gulbis, but just to show the excessive movements he does before hitting his forehand (which kinda look funny IMO). Gulbis's forehand is not even that unorthodox. He does have excessive arm movement, but boiled down, he still gets the racquet head speed and windshield viper finish which is essential for the modern forehand.

Spare us, Merwy. Is Gulbis your son or brother that you insult people just because they think his forehand looks ugly? These quoted posts indicate that you can't refrain from making superficial critiques of effective tennis games. Nadal and Murray are both immensely successful players and by calling their games "ugly", you are calling yourself a "girl"...and a very hypocritical one at that.

Click to expand...

I don't understand how my post offended you to this degree.. But I don't like it when the discussion gets personal like this so can we please keep this about Gulbis?

I don't understand how my post offended you to this degree.. But I don't like it when the discussion gets personal like this so can we please keep this about Gulbis?

Click to expand...

It is perfectly normal to discuss the aesthetics of form and technique on a tennis forum. Not everyone looks like Federer on court. You, yourself, think that Murray's forehand is ugly and Nadal "rapes the game of tennis" of tennis with his game. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with people thinking that Gublis's forehand looks ridiculous.

There is no objection. Why can't anyone comment on aesthetics of a players game without being accused of hating or being a "girl" (heh, nice 'insult' Merwy)? The point of posting that picture was not to hate on Gulbis, but just to show the excessive movements he does before hitting his forehand (which kinda look funny IMO). Gulbis's forehand is not even that unorthodox. He does have excessive arm movement, but boiled down, he still gets the racquet head speed and windshield viper finish which is essential for the modern forehand.

Also, nothing about Federer's forehand is textbook.

Click to expand...

Federer's forehand was not textbook at the time of his emergence, but since now everyone wants to play with it, instructors feel compelled to teach it. A large percentage of rec players are Federer wannabes, with the bandana, wristband and moisture-wicking polo courtesy of Nike to match. No other player seems to have such conspicuous imitators (a few teenagers try to play like Nadal but rarely adopt the full get-up). That demographic must be catered to by the tennis community. So for better or worse, Federer's forehand is the new textbook forehand.

Federer's forehand was not textbook at the time of his emergence, but since now everyone wants to play with it, instructors feel compelled to teach it. A large percentage of rec players are Federer wannabes, with the bandana, wristband and moisture-wicking polo courtesy of Nike to match. No other player seems to have such conspicuous imitators (a few teenagers try to play like Nadal but rarely adopt the full get-up). That demographic must be catered to by the tennis community. So for better or worse, Federer's forehand is the new textbook forehand.

Click to expand...

Federer's forehand is a very tough shot to teach. You are talking about average recreational players who love imitating his idol; an irrelevant observation. I have seen these people myself and no matter how hard they try, they will never actually learn Federer's forehand and there are no instructors who can teach you Federer's forehand either. If you have been watching the new talents showing up on the scene now, they all have hideous forehands that are struck with extreme grips and an exaggerated windshield viper. The kind of muscle memory Federer has on his forehand stroke is something that is utterly elusive to the younger pro players and his imitators.

Agassi did have a textbook forehand. His policy was almost "grip it and rip it". He took the racquet back and struck the ball cleanly...there was very little room for wrist snaps, overhead finishes, and throwing his entire body at the ball.

Sat down front row yesterday at Delray to watch his Qualie match against Daniel Kosakowsky. I took a video of his forehand because something looked odd to me...his left hand. As far as being effective LOL, that thing is so powerful is not even funny.

A stage of the evolution of his forehand. Sometimes, you have to over exentuate to ingrain something, then you go slightly back to more conventional.
Similar to the stage in Djokovic's service motion 3 years ago.